Monday, March 20, 2006

So, many of devices use more power when on standby than we thought. I am all for letting the consumer know about what they are buying. I also like the idea of minimizing the amount of power that a device uses in standby mode.

I think though that California laws go a little too far. The scientist, Alan Meier, thought that standby mode of a watt (1 watt) was a great target to shoot for. California takes this idea and then goes beyond, with 0.75 watts by next year and 0.5 by 2008.

Hello? The scientist who has been pushing for awareness about this issue did not ask for something this extreme. So why would California law makers go this far?

I would like to see a listing of the power consumption when in standby and when in 'normal use' listed. Then consumers could decide which product to buy. This way if there is some feature that a company wants to offer that takes the standby power consumption above 1 watt, then the consumer can make the decision for themselves if that feature is worth it.

Friday, March 17, 2006

This article takes a little bit to get to the meat, but once it does, it suggests something I have said in the past, "Why does the music industry just not make what you purchase a license and let you select the format you want to recieve the content associated with that content."

What do I mean? If you bought a 'license' for a group of songs from your favorite artist. Then you decided that you wanted them on CD and as MP3s? The music label, as they would be providing the MP3s, could put a digital fingerprint in the file that lets them know who's license it is. Finding the sources for piraters would be SO much easier, and most people would not need to pirate, as they would be able to get music in the format they want and know they could replace it if need be.

Infact, the music label could start a whole side business of processing license transfers. Want to sell your music you dont like anymore? The music industry charges a small fee and transfers your license to whoever you designate. They not only made money on the original sale, but now they are making money on the resale (which they hate now, cause people are selling music and they dont get a cut).

As stated in the article mentioned, they would also make money if you lost your CD and need to replace it. Or, say you are starting to fill up your MP3 player (ie, iPod) and want to make more room on it by having your music in the latest compression format (ie, going from MP3 to AAC)? Do you want to spend the time converting all of your tracks? The music label could provide you with the converted format for a small fee (again, making money on music they already sold). AND they again get to place a digital marker in the file so they can track what the original license was for tracking pirates.

The funny thing is, they could end up having some people spend more money on these services that come after the sale than they would ever make selling them CDs. I also feel, because the choice is with the consumer, the consumer would feel that it is more fair, because they get to decide.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Now, why didn't I think of that?

I really wish I had thought of this. It makes so much sense. A cheap, portable, product that will let you play video and audio. And with 'Enhanced' AAC 'podcasts', you can even have chapter marks, screen shots, and links to more information with a voice over tutorial giving you step by step instructions.

Makes so much sense. Here I was thinking that DVDs made the most sense for video training distribution. I will have to talk to my clients about this. What an awakening.

Wonder if this will become the default training format? Even if the main training location will be on a PC, the format is fixed, it is flexible (plays on PCs, MACs, iPods, and TiVo's), and there is a massive number mobile training devices out there.

If you are a company wanting to make sure your employees are enthusiastic about training, give them an iPod.